But it does matter if we want to establish a proper chronology and the empirical base. So far we have a video where Craig says that Apple is not considering direct booting Windows, and an Ars article where and journalist claims that Craig said that direct booting were only up to Microsoft. These two things are mutually contradictory, with the video of course being more trustworthy. If there is another video corroborating the latter point that kind of changes the entire story.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Instead of Rosetta 2, why Apple doesn't make a Windows x86 emulator?
- Thread starter UBS28
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But it does matter if we want to establish a proper chronology and the empirical base. So far we have a video where Craig says that Apple is not considering direct booting Windows, and an Ars article where and journalist claims that Craig said that direct booting were only up to Microsoft. These two things are mutually contradictory, with the video of course being more trustworthy. If there is another video corroborating the latter point that kind of changes the entire story.
If I remember correctly the video I (and Arstechica) was referring to came earlier, so Craig kind of backtracked on this video
It seems like when Craig was saying that it was up to Microsoft, that he meant that MS could put in the work to build a boot loader and drivers for direct boot of Windows on AS but that Apple did not plan to help them. It does not appear that either company has any interest in doing that.
The best bet for Windows on AS is going to be VMs and whether MS is interested in supporting that or not.
If they did this maybe it would serve to impede people from making proper macOS apps.
Also might encourage people to buy their hardware to use apps that are unlikely to be ported in the first place. Of course, that's a market they don't care about any longer, clearly. They're a home and prosumer lifestyle brand. That works for them.
All the design studios, corporate in-house graphics departments, and editing bays I’ve worked in over the past 20 years would say otherwise.
Everywhere I’ve ever worked it’s either been a 100% Mac shop, or it was an in-house graphics team at a Fortune 500 with the creatives using Macs while the rest of the company was staffed by boring people doing boring jobs on boring Windows machines.
In companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon Macs are widely used in the software development teams. Even in some banks, software developers are using Macs.
leman and robco74,
Thank you both for setting me straight on VMs vs Boot Camping, and I want to offer a sincere apology for assuming the worst about you guys!
Thank you both for setting me straight on VMs vs Boot Camping, and I want to offer a sincere apology for assuming the worst about you guys!
Well in order to support Bootcamp, Apple has already provided Windows drivers for the custom ARM64 hardware in T2 Macs.
I know it’s a troll post but you’re not seriously making a comparison of these 2 things… there’s still a Intel processor behind the T2 handling windows and all the x86 code… there’s none with the M1… software emulate the x86 code through Rosetta 2…
If anyone is trolling, it is not me. And yes I am making a comparison of these 2 things.
Windows on Arm doesn’t runs x86 code, it runs ARM64 code. The T2 doesn’t run x86 code it runs ARM64 code. The x64 code running on a T2 Mac is loaded from the SSD by ARM64 code running on the T2 and a custom x64 windows driver written by Apple. Apple also wrote a windows device driver for the Magic Trackpad. This driver only works with T2 Macs.
If Apple and Microsoft wanted Bootcamp for Apple Silicon Macs it would happen.
Apple should do more to help developers port their applications to macOS. For example, Apple could collaborate with Github, so that Github can provide CI/CD pipelines that run on ARM macOS.
Sure, they wrote a basic SSD driver, a driver for their custom WiFi/Bluetooth software and even a minimal driver to show function keys on the Touch Bar. The alternative would be dropping BootCamp with the Touch Bar Macs, and that wouldn't go down too well. Still, none of this changes the fact that Apple Silicon is a whole different matter.
Frankly, the only way how I see a "native-like" Windows working is Apple implementing a bare-metal-like hypervisor that emulates a standard ARM system. The you could "boot" Windows on top of this thing. That's probably the path of the least resistance given the fact that Apple already implemented the basic functionality.
That I fully agree with. Would be such a great PR move from their side.
Apple is offering its own CI/CD product. Also, even on Intel Macs, you can build ARM64 MacOS code and it has been possible to build IOS ARM code since the first iOS SDK was released.
You can build it, but you can't test it. TBH, CI/CD is probably less of a problem than some claim, but it is still helpful.
I don’t think there is such a thing as a standard ARM system and Touchbar Macs weren’t the only Intel Macs with T2s. Obviously, Windows for ARM already boots in a hypervisor so yes that would work but it wouldn’t be bootcamp.
On the T2 Macs, Apple had to hack the Windows boot process to get it to work and Linux is still not bootable from the internal SSD. However, if someone can boot Linux from the internal drive on a M1 Mac, it should be possible to do the same on a T2.
That is true but I doubt the migration of Mac apps to ARM is being held up by an inability to run unit test on ARM. I suspect many of these apps don’t even have a decent set of unit tests.
If I understand it correctly, this is mostly a problem for some open-source projects where contributors don't have access to an AS Mac and must rely on manual testing done by other devs. Doesn't make the best workflow...
Apple has two options: (1) help users run Windows applications on VMs/ Bootcamp or (2) help developers port their applications to macOS. MacOS users will have a better experience in the long run if Apple chooses the second option.
Apple should reduce any barriers developers may have to porting their applications. Thus, they should focus on making it easier and cheaper for developers to access macOS.
Apple should reduce any barriers developers may have to porting their applications. Thus, they should focus on making it easier and cheaper for developers to access macOS.
How can developers access that CI/CD service? How much is it? If Apple hardware is needed for it, Apple is not helping developers to port their apps, it is selling them hardware.
These options are not mutually exclusive and Apple is kind of pursuing both. They did implement virtualisation technology that hides the peculiarities of Apple Silicon and allows the user to virtualise an OS that expect a "standard ARM" system.
You are probably the twenties person saying this, so I have already elaborated my point around nineteen times
I have to refer you to the rest of the thread for the discussionIf Apple were committed to helping developers port their apps, it would change its licensing of macOS to cloud service providers today. The requirement to rent macOS for a minimum of 24 hours limits too much the usefulness of macOS online.
In our company which has 10’s of thousands of office workers, I seems like more than 1/3 are using Macs. Some are devs, others are in various other office roles.